Why Our Coercive System of Schooling Should Topple

I’ve been called a crazy optimist, a Pollyanna, a romantic idealist. How can I believe that our system of compulsory (forced) schooling is about to collapse? People point out that in many ways the schooling system is stronger now than ever. It occupies more of children’s time, gobbles up more public funds, employs more people, and is more firmly controlled by government—and at ever-higher levels of government—than has ever been true in the past. So why do I believe it’s going to collapse—slowly at first and then more rapidly—over the next ten years or so? Here are four reasons (adapted from the webpage of the Alliance for Self-Directed Education):

1. Our coercive schools have become increasingly and evermore obviously harmful to kids.

Decades ago, schools were tolerable primarily because they didn’t take too much of young people’s time. Children and teens had much time after school, on weekends, and all summer long for self-directed pursuits. But over the years, the school system has intruded increasingly, and ever more disruptively, into children’s and families’ lives. The length of the school year has increased (it now averages 5 weeks longer than in the 1950s). The number of years of required attendance has increased. The amount of homework has increased immensely, especially in elementary schools. Recesses have been reduced, or even been eliminated. Fun activities, such as art and music, have regularly been dropped from curricula in favor of more time for worksheets and test preparation. Teachers have been given less freedom to depart from the standard curriculum, and ever-greater pressure has been placed on children to score high on standardized tests.

Children now often spend more time at school and at homework than their parents spend at their full-time jobs, and the work of schooling is often more burdensome and stress-inducing than that of a typical adult job. A century ago we came to the conclusion that full-time child labor was child abuse, so we outlawed it; but now school is the equivalent of full-time child labor.

The increased time, tedium, and stress of schooling is bringing many kids to the breaking point or beyond, and more and more people are becoming aware of that. It can no longer be believed that schooling is a benign experience for children. The evidence that it induces pathology is overwhelming. Here is just some of that evidence:

• A large-scale study involving hundreds of students from many school districts, using an experience sampling method, revealed that students were less happy in school than in any other setting in which they regularly found themselves.[1]

• Verbal abuse from teachers is a common occurrence. In one survey, for example, 64% of middle school students reported experiencing stress symptoms because of verbal abuse from teachers.[2]. Another study revealed that nearly 30% of boys are verbally abused by teachers in kindergarten, and the abuse increased in years after that.[3] Surveys of adults indicate that between 50% and 60% recall school-related experiences that, in their view, were psychologically traumatic.[4]

• In a study in which adults were interviewed to find out about positive, peak learning experiences occurring in their schooling, few could recall such experiences, but many recalled negative experiences, which interfered with rather than supported their development.[5]

• Hair cortisol levels in young children were found to be significantly higher in samples taken two months after starting elementary school than in samples taken two months prior to starting elementary school.[6] Hair cortisol level is reflective of chronic stress, the sort of stress that can seriously impair physical growth and health.

• A large-scale national survey conducted by the American Psychological Association (reported here) revealed that U.S. teenagers feel more stressed-out than do adults and that school is by far the main cause of their stress (noted by 83% of the sample). In the same study, 27% of teens reported experiencing “extreme stress” during the school year, compared to 13% reporting that during the summer.

• The rate of emergency mental health visits leading to at least one overnight stay (the sort of visits that derive from serious breakdowns or attempted suicide) at a children’s medical center was found to be more than twice as high during school months as compared to summer vacation months (here).

• At present, 20% of school-aged boys are given the diagnosis ADHD, a “disorder” that is largely defined in terms of failure to adapt to the tedium of schooling, and most of that group are treated with strong drugs to get them to adapt (here).

It is not unreasonable to say that standard schooling is state-sanctioned (or even state-mandated) child abuse. More and more people are coming to that realization, and that is why more and more people are looking for ways to remove their children from the schools. (For more about the harm done by standard schooling, see here.)

2. Evidence has mounted that children and adolescents can educate themselves remarkably well without coercive schooling.

Summerhill (the famous boarding school for Self-Directed Education founded by A.S. Neill) has been operating in England for nearly a century. Sudbury Valley (the famous day school for Self-Directed Education founded by Daniel Greenberg and others) has been operating in Massachusetts for nearly half a century, and dozens of other schools have been modeled after it. Forty years have elapsed since the educator and philosopher John Holt coined the term unschooling to describe the homeschooling practice of allowing children to pursue their own interests, with no imposed curriculum.

Over the last few decades, many thousands of young people, from a wide range of backgrounds, have educated themselves through these means, and follow-up studies have shown that they are doing very well in life. They have had no apparent difficulty being admitted to or adjusting to the demands of traditional higher education, if they choose to pursue it, and they have been successful in the full range of careers that we value in our society. As adults, they generally report that their experience with Self-Directed Education benefitted them by allowing them to develop their own interests (which often turned into careers) and by fostering such traits as personal responsibility, initiative, creativity, curiosity, critical thinking, and ability to communicate well with people regardless of status. [7] [Note: I have elaborated on the biological foundations for Self-Directed Education, and the reasons why it works so well, in many previous posts, but for concise definitions and explanations see here and here.]

In recent years, partly because of increased awareness of the success of Self-Directed Education and partly because of the growing toxicity of coercive schools, evermore families are choosing Self-Directed Education for their children. As more families are choosing it, more others are getting to know people who have chosen it and can see firsthand the evidence of its success. At some point, when everyone sees the evidence, the gates will open and the coercive schools will begin to empty out. People will begin to demand that some of the public funds currently spent on coercive schools be spent on learning centers and other facilities that support Self-Directed Education, so all families, regardless of income, will have that option.

3. Self-Directed Education is easier to pursue now than it was in the past.

Self-Directed Education is becoming ever easier to pursue. One reason for this lies in the increased numbers of families taking this route and, consequently, the increased acceptability of Self-Directed Education in the culture at large. The availability of schools and learning centers designed for Self-Directed Education has been increasing, and the number of homeschoolers engaged in Self-Directed Education has likewise been increasing. As Self-Directed Education becomes more common, as more and more people, including education authorities, know young people taking this route and see their success, the social barriers against it are decreasing.

Another reason for the increased ease of Self-Directed Education lies in technology. Today, anyone with a computer and Internet connection can access essentially all the world’s information. Self-directed learners who want to pursue almost any subject can find articles, videos, discussion groups, and even online courses devoted to it. They can gain information and share thoughts with experts and novices alike, throughout the world, who have interests akin to theirs. Students in standard schools must study just what the school dictates, in just the ways that the school decides; but self-directed learners can find subjects and means of study that match their own particular interests and styles of learning. Self-directed learners are not held back by the slow pace of a school course, nor are they rushed ahead when they want more time to think about and delve deeply into any given aspect of the interest they’re pursuing.

4. Changes in the economy favor the skills developed by Self-Directed Education.

Because of changes in how we make our livings, the skills exercised by coercive schooling are even less valuable, and those exercised by Self-Directed Education are even even more valuable, now than they were in the past. We don’t need people who can memorize and regurgitate lots of information; we have Google for that. We don’t need many people to do routine, tedious tasks dictated by others; we have robots for that.

What we do need, and will continue to need, are people who think critically and creatively, innovate, ask and answer questions that nobody else has thought of, and bring moral values and a passionate sense of purpose into the workplace. These are the kinds of skills that are continuously honed in Self-Directed Education. In coercive schools, the requirement that everyone follow the same curriculum, motivated by reward and punishment rather than genuine interest, guarantees that most students will not develop passionate interests, deep understanding, or a sense of purpose other than that of making it through the next hoop.

------------

Source: Basic Books with permission

“Okay,” I hear some say, “these are all good reasons why our forced system of schooling should topple soon; but will it topple soon?” Yes, it will, because it really is reaching the end of the line. In fact, much of the increased odiousness of school has come about precisely because of the increased recognition that our schools are failing. Stupidly, in recent times we’ve tried to “fix” the schools by doing more of what doesn’t work. But that can’t go on forever. The revolution will come not because authorities within the coercive school system become enlightened, but because a growing number of families who are victims of that system will realize that they have an option—a good option—and they will take it.

But let’s not just wait for that social change to occur; let’s push it along. Let’s develop an organized movement to inform people about this option and how they can pursue it. That’s the purpose of a new nonprofit organization that I’m a part of—the Alliance for Self-Directed Education. Maybe you'd like to join it.

-----------

And now, what do you think? Do you agree that the coercive schooling system will collapse soon, or not? Or do you disagree even with the premise that it should collapse? As always, I prefer if you post your thoughts and questions here rather than send them to me by private email. By putting them here, you share with other readers, not just me. I try to read all comments and try to respond to all serious questions if I think I have something worth saying. Of course, if you have something to say that applies only to you and me, then send me an email, but I don’t guarantee a response because I often receive more emails than I can answer.

See also Free to Learn, self-directed.org (to find out about the Alliance for Self-Directed Education), and join me on Facebook.

[6] Groeneveld et al (2013). Children’s hair cortisol as a biomarker of stress at school entry. Stress: The International Journal on the Biology of Stress, 16, 711-715.

[7] See research studies reported in: (a) American Journal of Education, 94, pp 182-213; (b) Other Education: The Journal of Educational Alternatives, 4, 33-53; and (c) Book by Greenberg, D., & Sadofsky, M. Legacy of Trust: Life after the Sudbury Valley School Experience; and (d) book by Greenberg, D., Sadofsky, M., & Lempka, J. The Pursuit of Happiness: The Lives of Sudbury Valley Alumni.)

This is my 10th year home educating my children. We live in a small city in Upstate NY, and love our urban neighborhood. However, the schools in our city truly struggle to meet the needs of the children attending (especially in extremely poor areas). My heart breaks for the lost time and lost dignity of those children in the way that the system fails them year after year. We know home education is not the answer. I don't believe "vouchers" to a sudbury like democratic school is the answer, either. How do we work in our communities to enact dramatic change for the poorest students?

You said, "I don't believe "vouchers" to a [Sudbury-like] democratic school is the answer, either."

The only problem I can see with vouchers is that they are typically not intended to cover 100% of the cost of a child's schooling. Therefore, they could not help families who are too poor to afford the rest of the cost of tuition at a private school.
If we could actually arrange for the government to provide vouchers for the full cost of a child's education at a private school (or simply arrange for a great variety of publicly funded schools), then we could realistically set up LOTS of new Sudbury-like schools, or other types of self-directed learning centers!
One of the first things we'd have to do, to get politicians to agree to fund all kinds of different schools, is to persuade them that we should NOT have a standardized, one-size-fits-all education system!
I hope that Peter is right about more and more people realizing that our current standardized, compulsory schooling system is detrimental to children's health and well-being!

Self-directed education, I think, would be much cheaper. I see the benefit of vouchers in that it may guarantee that anyone can go to any school of their choice (or no school). There is also a problem with that very premise though, and it comes from spending other people's money. It would unfortunately lead to higher costs and less efficiency in the market. What Milton Friedman called the Four Ways to Spend Money. Here is a chart for this: http://tinyurl.com/h684bh8

The current system is in the bottom right quadrant, the voucher in the bottom left, and the ideal system is in the top left.

I think another inherent problem with vouchers – and indeed, a problem with all "choice" models for distributing public goods – is that a voucher system assumes from the outset a marketplace-like system. And in a marketplace, through the structure of the system itself, there are winners and losers, so some schools (or learning centers, or whatever) will succeed and others will fail. This would be immensely harmful to children; our goal should be a system that can meet the educational needs of everyone. It may well be that publicly funded and widely available options for self-directed education ought to be a part of that system, but simply opening the doors to choice would not create an equitable system, and probably would not create very many self-directed options either. Rather, a handful of people would get to go to well-resourced private schools or self-directed learning centers or any number of other quality options, while the majority of kids are stuck in a sub-par, underfunded, and probably very traditional school system. Since those same kids will come from the communities with the least political power, there will be very little impetus to change the system of their education to meet their needs (as opposed the needs of the system itself and people who profit from it and administrate it).

First I'll address you issues with the problem at hand, then I'll address the problem with your analysis.

Public goods create a well documented problem of the tragedy of the commons. Market goods have the benefit of losers and winners. A very large scale, with those ends. I don't follow the logic that a market system, proven over human history and in economic theory to be the best system to discover winners, would somehow harm children. We want winner schools, the best system to determine winners is the market. You go on to say the "educational needs of everyone" - here we are talking about a group of infinitely distinct individuals. There is no group to educate to, just individuals. Everyone is an impossibility. Forget it. Everyone might be educated, but to their wants and capacity. One size, ten sizes, doesn't fit all, anything less than infinite possibilities is limiting the child. We are not equals. A child interested in math at 5 is not the same as the child interested in math at 10, and they are not the same as the child who is never interested in math or who is incapable of math beyond X level at any age. Equality of what? If the issue is that some children might have better education then get over it. In the US you have better (arguably) education than Nicaragua or Zimbabwe. There will be inequalities. The goal should be freedom. In freedom, I hope the children find their love, their passion, and excel at it, pushing humanity towards greater accomplishment.

Really, you hit the nail on the head when you realized the fault in a lack of markets... that is, you perfectly described the status quo as your fear of a freer market.

"while the majority of kids are stuck in a sub-par, underfunded, and probably very traditional school system. Since those same kids will come from the communities with the least political power, there will be very little impetus to change the system of their education to meet their needs (as opposed the needs of the system itself and people who profit from it and administrate it)."

That is one problem.

The bigger problem I think we are seeing unfold around us... and therefore may be harder to see. We need free education, that is, without government mandates, regulation, curriculum, etc. for the very same reason we need free press. Those who control the information of the press control the narrative... and if you control the narrative of the children, you control something much more powerful than the press.

The beauty of funding self- directed learning centers is that being "the best" becomes less meaningful. Like the good enough parent, the good enough self-directed learning center only has to provide sufficient resources to make it possible for the children to explore their interests and in the process to evolve their own sense of self. Later they can still go on to play the prestige game at a University should they so desire.

My thought is that pulling your kids out of the public school system only really works if you've got the time and money to do so. The families most let down by the system are also the ones with the least amount of options.

Even the most disadvantaged people have options. For instance, they could have some kind of community centers for their kids where they can study. They may even call them schools. It's not the existence of some kind of school that is the problem. It's the things like being compulsory, the grading and testing system, the pressure to conform and to perform, and so on. The difference is that they would not have to send their kids to a school they don't like. They would be free to find or create something different. Besides, many of the disadvantaged people are not illiterate. They can at least teach their kids the basics, such as reading, and then let their kids read some more while their parents are at work. They know the alphabet, at the very least.

I am a single mom living at our below poverty level my son's entire life, we've made homeschooling work for us.
My son starts full time college in August with 29 credits and a blacksmith apprenticeship completed.
The only limit to child directed learning is determination.

Dr. Gray (and readers), what's your take on PEOTUS Trump's selection of Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Ed? She seems to have a plan to bust up the system as it currently stands. Charter schools offer a lot more flexibility, but the results aren't consistent. Surely some kids would benefit, and other would suffer. Likely many new ideas would proliferate. Accountability systems could be rather uncertain or inconsistent.

She seems like a likely candidate for "toppling" the public education system as it currently stands. To what degree might that also shift the coercive nature of it or allow more self-direction to flourish? Or will more kids just end up with a new sort of coercion that promotes greater insularity of thinking?

The crystal ball is hazy, but now more than ever a big change of some sort seems possible and even likely.

DeVos isn't a reformer, she doesn't want to 'bust up' the existing system, she wants to privatize it. It may be that more people want to escape the existing system once it is carved up and sold off, but nothing she does will challenge the way school is structured.

I saw her Senate confirmation hearings and I couldn't even make that face add up to a person. She was appointed by a man who rarely speaks complete sentences.
Whatever those two have in mind I don't know and I don't want to know. There' s only so much of the world out there that I can take.

Hi Kimble,
Democratic schools are working well for low income students already. Schools such as the Brooklyn Free School, The Philly Free School have a substantial amount of low income students. Brooklyn Free School even has a social justice profile. My daughters are in one of these schools and I overheard a student say she felt more at home in school than at home. I have no idea if she was from a low income household, but coming to a place where you are free to be you and to pursue your interests, and have support in that from grown ups - a place where your most important needs are met first, be they sleep, hunger or emotional - that is a place students from all kinds of backgrounds can have a chance to thrive in.

Kimble, my vision, which I've described elsewhere, is a system of publicly supported learning centers designed to facilitate self-directed education. It would cost less than our current coercive schools. Children need community beyond the home, and to develop well they need what I call an "educationally rich community," where there are lots of kids to play with, where they have a say in how the community operates, where there are a variety of adults as well as kids of all ages, where they can experience first hand the valued activities of the culture. // Certainly you must agree that our current prison-like schools are not serving poor children well. The more pressure we put on kids in those schools, the greater the education gap becomes.

I think the question of funding is important, but not related to the failed model of education. Some of the very best funded schools in the country fail large portions of their student body with coerced, arbitrary curricula. And some of the very worst schools in the country have the highest per-pupil spending.

Flexible, collaborative education is inherently less expensive than the model we have today.

I respect your analysis and agree with the principles of self-directed education. It has been wonderful for my family ---- but then, we have been able to live on one salary and rely on the attentive involvement of extended family and the rich offerings of a college town. There should be greater opportunities for all young people to learn as they choose no matter their circumstances. That said, I strongly believe there should also be a place for public education as a true public entity ---- perhaps more akin to learning centers like public libraries than to today's schools.

Which leads me to the problem with articles like this one. Your idealism might be blinding you to how you're being used as a shill for neo-liberals who want to privatize public schools. Notice the long-standing attempt to rename them "government schools" ---- this goes back to staunch libertarian and now pro-Trump teddy bear of the unschooling movement, John Taylor Gatto. This movement has long pushed the mindset that schools are failing*, backed by millions of dollars of lobbying that's given us the meaningless (data-grabbing) testing today's kids now endure and the egregiously awful charter and cyber school programs paid for by our tax dollars ---- all providing profits for multinational corporations.

Your intentions are good, but if they're applauded by rapaciously greedy for-profit groups, they're not stated clearly enough. I'd have more respect for ASDE if you embraced public school teachers and parents as they try to wrestle away from corporate control and evolve into thriving community-based centers for learning.

*They aren't, look at the Yes magazine article "The Myth Behind Public School Failure" and Diane Ravitch's book, "Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools."

People on the left question the motivations of charter schools and people on the right question the motivations of teachers' unions.

People on the left say they don't think standardized tests should be used to judge teachers (a position I agree with), and then they use their results to illustrate that charters don't do better than traditional schools.

People on the right want to judge teachers based on the tests, while ignoring the desires and preferences of the students.

People on the left think public education doesn't get enough money and people on the right think it gets too much.

None of it matters. Not one tiny bit. Because every discussion involves talking past the people who matter most: the students. And no matter which side wins, most of the students are going to lose. Because the paradigm will be the same: compulsory attendance to memorize mostly arbitrary subjects, at arbitrary rates, with arbitrary goals.

People are fighting fiercely for their ideological teams, ignoring the well-known fact that millions of kids hate school for reasons that cannot be addressed with money.

Charter schools are not the answer to this problem, so long as they embrace the traditional paradigm. And the traditional paradigm will continue so long as students are not given the freedom to choose what, when, and how they will engage in one of the most profoundly personal endeavors any of us ever undertake: learning.

Absolutely! Student voice matters. I am a teacher in Western Canada. Our school division believes in supporting and facilitating student learning through inquiry. Teachers, however, have limited control of school hours (6.5 per day in my province), student assessment, school administration, and the forced injection of some standardization. That said, we are also an inclusive environment which accepts all levels of learning and behaviour need. Inclusion did not exist in the 1950's. Classroom sizes were smaller, and teachers were respected as professionals. There were not varying degrees of behaviour need, language and/or academic need. The system is overwhelmed. Teachers are overwhelmed. Working parents are overwhelmed. The answer, however, is not to condemn and abandon public schooling all together. It is about reform and progress that can not exist in the strict and rigorous confines of schools that are forced to standardized. Whole communities need to be responsible for creating environments where collaboration between the school, home, and neighbourhood can work together in order to provide the best education program possible for students.

I agree completely. When we free teachers from arbitrary standards, so that they really get to know their students, to collaborate with them and their families, then we'll begin to see some universally positive changes.

Focusing on standardised testing and centralised curriculum misses the point. Many private schools reject these and promote "inquiry" based learning, critical thinking, etc.

But when the curriculum and learning outcomes are set by a panel of teachers who are responsible for their students' behaviour and for making sure they 'learn' what the adults want them to, the result is the same.

Every teacher I have met believes that they know what is best for children, and therefore each child's job is to obey their instructions in order to learn the proper way to act, think, feel and so on.

This attitude withholds respect and removes the ability to take responsibility for themselves.

The only meaningful choice left in such an environment is to obey the rules or to defy them. To please the teacher or rebel against authority.

But I think being silent about the profit motive is reasonable, considering that the vast majority of what is wrong with schools has nothing to do with the profit motive, and everything to do with the conventional model of coercive schooling, with arbitrary curricula, and arbitrary goals which ignore the needs and desires of students.

Lore, I appreciate your warning here. I'm embarrassed every time I see one of my articles quoted on a sheet that is also promoting the freedom of everyone to own assault rifles. But that's not going to stop me from arguing for what I think is right. Our prison-like schools are an abomination, for children regardless of their income. As I pointed out in other posts, and in response to a previous comment here, my ultimate vision is NOT the replacement of public schools with private ones, but the development of publicly supported facilities to support Self-Directed Education. I have no illusions that Trump's secretary of educations going to move us in a direction I'd like to see us go. At least around here, the charter schools are no better and in some cases worse than the other coercive schools, -Peter

However, the protecting and growing of profit supports the coercion. Profiteers NEED the coercion to make their bottom line. Textbook publishers, test-makers, school owners, shoot--even professional educators (like me) wouldn't make it financially without the captive audience.

I agree that coercive schooling is deeply ingrained into our culture and our way of thinking about everything we hold important. This is what keeps the mass of troops marching dutifully and unquestioningly. However, the profiteers control the troops, telling us where to march, how fast to march, and protecting us from outside influences that would cause us to question the uniformity of the march.

(It's nearly impossible to question the march without the time, space, and cultural capital that financial resources allow.)

Promoting self directed education will have to address both our deeply held beliefs and the power of those who are protecting their financial interests.

John Gatto is not the intellectual or political originator of the unschooling movement—John Holt and Ivan Illich are, and their politics and social visions are grounded in the concept of a commonwealth and an active, convivial citizenry. They are little "l" libertarians, not big "L" like John Gatto.

Holt and Illich criticized all compulsory schooling, private and public, and Holt, in particular, wrote how private schooling is toxic to intellectual curiosity and personal development.

Carol McNamara wrote in her comment, “How do we work in our communities to enact dramatic change for the poorest students?” That to me is the real question, not how to do we make the poor do as well as the rich on standardized tests. This requires a vision of public education that goes beyond earning credentials for employment, and such a change must involve social action to work.

LJM comments, “People are fighting fiercely for their ideological teams, ignoring the well-known fact that millions of kids hate school for reasons that cannot be addressed with money.” I couldn’t agree more, and this is why both Republicans and Democrats are just reinforcing the status quo by promoting school-based solutions over human-based solutions for educational problems.

I support the concept of public institutions and don’t begrudge my tax dollars that offer millions of people childcare while they work. But I can't quietly support a system that is inherently undemocratic and serves to sustain an elite under the guise of democracy, which is why I support alternatives to schooling. As John Holt wrote in 1974:

“Schooling does not make it easier for poor kids to get the credentials that would admit them to good jobs. It simply keeps raising the amount of credentials that poor kids have to get. It is much easier, by raising the school requirements of a job, to shut poor kids off from it than it is for them to get that additional schooling. Nowhere in our society are the school requirements of jobs going down. Through these requirements we are constantly closing down, not opening up, the work and career opportunities of the poor. As fast as poor kids learn to run the school obstacle course, already much longer and tougher for them than for kids of the middle class, we find ways to make the course still longer. It is a great way, among other things, of burning off the political energies and anger of the poor. We can keep them busy for years scrambling and competing against each other for a scarce handful of degrees, on the chance that they may then get jobs that in most cases could have been done just as well without the degrees. Nor are poor kids free from discrimination even when they get the degrees. They still need the connections. Where before they had to run one obstacle course, now they have to run two.”

The social issues that actually improve people’s standards of living and therefore their educations—healthy food and shelter, a convivial environment to grow up in, a fair income and leisure time—are all neglected by our school reform debate that is framed by the assumption that the purpose of school is to first improve people’s educations—via charters, vouchers, Common Core, whatever—and that this education will somehow trickle down to improve the standards of living and job opportunities for the poor.

I’m seeking ways to help children learn and grow in our society besides making them consume more educational products of questionable value, and ASDE is a rare, grounding force for that effort.

"I support the concept of public institutions and don’t begrudge my tax dollars that offer millions of people childcare while they work. But I can't quietly support a system that is inherently undemocratic and serves to sustain an elite under the guise of democracy, which is why I support alternatives to schooling."

I support my local free school voluntarily. Schooling, both modern government schooling (and yes that is a fair term for it) and free schooling and everything in between exists because there is a market for them. The market exists because bettering ourselves through education is in our culture. When Patrick says 'public institutions' I wonder if he wouldn't be even more supportive of voluntary community projects. I don't support tax dollars going to any public 'good' or 'service' be it schools or war for the same reason I don't support the compulsory education and curriculum... the taxes and curriculum are both compulsory! Surely voluntary is better than coercive? Seems to me if there were to be a hallmark of civil society it would be that all human interaction is non-coercive, that is to say voluntary, which must mean that we eliminate taxation as a means of funding anything. We can hopefully agree that if the compulsory schooling and curriculum changed and children were able to lead there own educations that taxation funding education would be low on my list of programs to end. Governments are unlikely to stop stealing from me anytime soon; I'd like to see an end to this system which amounts to child abuse and focus on the bigger fish to fry such as ending war and compulsory soldiering (draft/registration) As it is, and as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the public institutions are certainly for profit. Education should be and will always be a for profit endeavor so trying to hide that fact only gets in the way of open arguments.

Finally, there is no motivation for me in saying 'government schools' other than accuracy of terminology. I could just as easily switch to the term compulsory schooling, forced schooling, theft-funded schooling... they are just terms to spin the same idea.

For a collection of essays covering how the ideas of voluntary exchange lead libertarians to share these ideas espoused by here, I recommend the book Everything Voluntary: From Politics to Parenting. Education is one chapter and through the book you will get a clear picture of how the ideas Dr. Gray and others speak of here can be applied to other areas, indeed all areas, of society and your personal life.

I would also add that racism plays a large role in the deep social problems you discuss here. I agree that schooling is not the heart of the problem, and that the public debate around schooling misses the point. But we should also talk about how the worst schools (by which I mean the most prison-like, most resource-poor, most abusive schools) are attended by majority students of color. Sometimes vast majority, nearly 100%. Our current misguided debate about raising test scores, getting more kids into college, and even creating more equitable funding represents a kind of surrender, a giving up on desegregation. If we are preoccupied with how to get poor minority kids to score better on tests, we are not trying to make our communities (and our schools reflect our communities, not really the other way around) more integrated and diverse.

In public schooling after 5th grade when kids are relentlessly mean and social pressure overshadows the joy and passion of learning, I stopped learning altogether. Well, actually I did learn how to do some things. I learned how to be perpetually stressed, anxious, how to memorize, how to pass tests, how to get good grades without taking in information, how to be obedient and subservient, how to just get by without causing a fuss or bringing any attention to myself ever. I loved learning in elementary school and I excelled. But when the goal of 'learning' became making honor roll and getting good grades to get into a good college, then actually digesting information and critically thinking about it went completely out the window. I didn't read books, I read cliffnotes. I cheated on tests and copied homework. I had no time anyway for the HOURS of agonizing nightly homework, since I was working part time anyway after school.

Years later, feeling like a souless, conformist, blah of a person, who watched reality tv shows and ready celebrity gossip, my husband would encourage me to read and learn to relax and find joy in learning real things that mattered. I started reading for fun, and enjoyed it, reading the books that I wanted to read and wasn't forced to read. I started with YA fiction and eventually moved onto beautiful literature, as my vocabulary improved and mind opened book after book. I felt stupid for not understanding nightly news, because I had no concept of global affairs, history, or civics, because I didn't learn about it in school (or avoided it) - so I started to read text books on my own, read wikipedia, watch documentaries, etc. My world soon opened up and a light that had been out for most my life turned on. I LOVE learning, reading, studying.. I can't get enough of it now. Every night I read.

Why? Because I get to do it on MY time, and relate it to my direct experiences, and am not forced to get out of it what a teacher demands I get, or do busy work and stupid worksheets. I've learned more in the past 2 years than I have in 10+ years of public formal education, and I am SO grateful and happy about it, but am also sickened at that waste of time AND the damage that was inflicted on me during those years. I was taught to be scared, obedient to authority, anxious, a good worker bee be who did not ask questions or feel passionate about anything.. Just taught to 'work hard so that you will get into a good college and get a good job and be happy', I heard those direct words from multiple teachers more than once. Very ironic because the life I would ultimately lead based on those words was anything but happy. I was a soulness, consumer, conformist. I would go to the voting booths during election time, and have not a clue about who or what I was voting for, just did what the media or what someone told me I should do. I had no reference level on history or world affairs or anything that really mattered, that could help someone make meaningful, purposeful, creative, ethical choices in life.

The worst part about my public school years is that I received no emotional guidance whatsoever. I was clearly stressed out, suffering from crippling social anxiety disorder. I had no guidance counselors or mentors or anyone to help steer me in the right directions towards therapy or learning basics of emotional intelligence. Instead, my anxieties were worsened on a daily basis in too big classrooms, forced presentations, intimidation, fear (about not succeeding if we didn't work hard enough) impersonal + limited interactions with teachers, etc. I, like above, would have to learn in my 20s ON MY OWN about psychology, emotional intelligence and wellbeing, ethics, and the skills required to be a HAPPY, balanced, emotionally stable human being. I can't believe of all things, this is not a focal point of public schooling.

I realize I am an extreme case of the damage inflicted by public schooling, but I know I am not alone. Do I believe home schooling is the answer? No. Because many people, including myself, were brought up in dysfunctional homes that could in no way foster learning. I do believe that this gross one size fits all approach needs to go, and we need more options for our children. Charter schools, unschooling centers, montessori, all of those are wonderful options and unfortunately are not accessible for many families.
In the end I am happy this matter is getting some attention, for the sake of future generations and for the sake, frankly, of societal mental wellness and happiness. My future children will not be going to public school, that is all I know for now.

As a high school junior I want to thank you for your comment and sharing your experience because it's exactly what I'm going through now. It's so comforting to have it all articulated by someone older who hasn't forgotten about how awful school really is (it seems to have disappeared from the memories of most of the adults in my life)

I'm so happy that you were able to get back in tune with your curiosity and rediscover your love for learning.

You are the new normal, you were a rat in the compulsory education cage, I watch them every day, running, running as hard and fast as they can trying to reach "the grade" and never really making it. Even that 100 is tarnished by the fact that others got it too.

We have created a higher education system that promotes itself at the expense of humanity, community, and racial and economic equity. I can give you thousands of examples, but for now, just one.

I am actually thinking about accepting work writing high school and college essays, for money, on the side. Just to join the dark side and help topple the ridiculous system we have created. I work for a relatively esteemed institution of higher education, authorizing charter schools (mostly good ones, we have a few that are struggling, but still better than their public district counterparts), and I parent two young adult males, one a senior in high school, one struggling with the higher ed system.

My senior who was saved from early drop-out status by a truly wonderful welding instructor needs .5 English credits to attain the golden ring (aka diploma). He is smart, but suffers from unnamed learning disabilities that make reading hard for him, but art and construction an innate ability. His welding instructor taught him that he CAN do math and science when it counts and he is not the idiot the rest of his teachers led him to believe. However, he struggled mightily, so basically dropped out senior year, with .5 credits hanging over his head.

His only option for reaching that ring is second semester English 12 on Plato, a soul stealing online platform whose narrator is like nails on a chalkboard after the first ten minutes. My only option is to suffer through it for him. Analyzing a Romantic poem, writing a narrative in Victorian style, Shelley, Keats, Bronte, Austen, are not really his jam.

Nor will they ever lead him to a satisfying career, help problem solve a natural disaster, help him make wise voting choices, or manage his stock portfolio. The idiotic notion that we all, all of us, an entire nation has one set of KNOWLEDGE we all must know to a minimal standard, to be successful in life is absurd.

And to carry that further and dictate that we also must all attain a college degree to be worthy of any paycheck that does not involve menial servant tasks, and an even higher degree if we ever hope to attain any level of respect, is simply the kind of elitism that befalls empires.

I have just paid someone to write my kid's essays. Somehow that felt more right than doing it myself. However, while online, I realized that I could do, should do it, and would love it. In the process, I can earn extra money, help lots of people jump through the nonsensical hoops that are standing in their way to actually contributing to society in a meaningful way, and hopefully, help undermine the system that is destroying our society.

We definitely live in interesting times and the moral and ethical dilemmas I face are not ones I ever imagined. Fortunately, I was given a stellar education in a public school system and a private college. But, it was one I sought, in a time before standardized testing... Thank you for writing Dr. Gray, I appreciate you and your essays have helped me survive my children's education. Truly, Lisa

I personally believe that we do need better options for schooling. Too many low income families are forced to send their children to schools close to home even when those schools do not have the same principles that the family does. Too many families are forced to pay large amounts of money to "fund" schooling but then their children do not recieve the education that they believe they should. Self Directed Education is the best option for a majority of children who feel pressured to meet the demands of schooling and are not truly learning anything that they are interested in.

Are you talking about the public school system or the various catholic and other types of schools like religious schools? What type of school system are you talking about? Not all schools are the same. You probably had a bad experience in the past of school and as I said before, not all schools are the same. I think that today, the school system is changing a bit with mobile technology and laptops that might be in the school system. Which kinds of schools are the ones that you are talking about. My Mom is a teacher and maybe it's how much money the school has for education and what kinds of resources or what kind of system is used for educating kids. Without school, I think that maybe the school system needs to change how they educate students and what they teach maybe instead of condemning schools.

Ian, I'm talking about ALL schools that operate under the assumption that children have to be forced to learn, by systems of rewards and punishments, or that all children are supposed to learn the same curriculum, in the same way, at the same time. This includes ALL public schools and almost all private schools, including those that call themselves "progressive." For more on this, see http://www.self-directed.org/sde/

Yes Ian, the schools need to change how they educate students and what they teach. They need to stop imposing a compulsory curriculum and they need to offer to teach kids what they themselves find interesting, and they need to do this mostly by showing them where they can find out what they'd like to know and by answering their questions. They also need to allow them to have undisturbed private time when they desire, and to provide opportunities to socialize with other kids when it is by mutual consent. Oh, and they need to not be graded or evaluated unless they specifically ask to be.
Does all of that sound reasonable to you? If not, why not? If you say that you just can't imagine it, then do your homework - its happening alright, just not at any place called a public school. But it could, if only people would choose for it to happen.

I know and have known public school teachers as friends and as relatives and they all care truly about children, and every last one of my teacher friends is profoundly frustrated and bitter regarding the school systems they work for.
They say they are not being allowed to actually teach, all they really do is test, and test, and test.

The chief issues are that the number of students per classroom is too large, so providing individual attention is virtually impossible.

The amount of material the class is expected to cover is too vast, so the pace is intense.

Both teachers and students are expected to simply tolerate the presence of truly dangerously destructive and disruptive children or teens who should not be "mainstreamed."

In some school districts teachers are expected to conduct their classes in both English and Spanish at the same time, which seems to be quite counterproductive; it takes twice as long to cover the class material and it is a disincentive to learn English quickly by immersion.

I have several cousins who decided to home school their children just to avoid the growing likelihood of their child encountering:
bullying,
street gang violence,
drug selling/using,
sexual predation by teachers and/or by other students, and
school shootings.

Some parents share that they prefer to educate their children within their religious beliefs instead of in a secular public school.

I think that if the entire school system could be overhauled and the issues I and others have listed could be resolved, there would be nothing wrong with having national standards for education. But I also like the idea of flexibility as in self-directed education, private schools and religious schools.

I really like the idea of having some high schools remain college-prep oriented while other high schools are oriented towards the fine arts, the performing arts, the sciences, business and entrepreneurship, industrial design, things like machinists and engineering and computers... in other words let kids pursue their own talents and interests earlier than college.

Not everyone wants or needs a masters degree or a doctorate degree to have a satisfying and lucrative career. Not everyone wants to be a doctor or a lawyer or a professor.

And yes, studies show that learning to read and play music, learning to draw and paint and sculpt, singing and regular physical activity are essential for the developing brains of children and teens. Taking that away is like taking away math.

I too hope that public schools will undergo a profound change for the better.

Your analysis about increased hours and homework in our schools is correct -it's horrendous.But that's because the US continually chooses test scores and increased face time as the answer to failing public schools.
Finland kids have 1/3 the face time of kids of most countries, no homework or standardized/ high stakes testing.Finnish kids are better served - not because their "PISA" scores are high but because Finns understand that having time to be kids is the most important thing kids need from school.
The idea that kids are regularly abused at school is nonsense. If kids spent six hours in Church everyday, they'd report abuse too - anyone who knows schools knows that the majority of "abuse" is misreported anecdotes of kids and defensive parents.That which isn't needs to be dealt with and can be,with cooperation and discussion. Some teachers are too confrontative and authoritarian, but too few for you to characterize them as the rule.

What you don't recognize in your, educational Tea Party treatise,is what schools do for our country and our kids..
It's not healthy for kids for them to be with their parents all day. Much better that they get to walk to and from their local school with friends, where I freely admit they learn just as much as in Math class. Kids need a safe place, away from parents, to practice making decisions that allow them to be more than just appendages of Mom and Dad. School gives them that, especially if parents work with the school to that purpose.
Schooling teaches routine to kids, mitigates against helicopter parenting, and inculcates cultural mores, traditions, and celebrations.
I agree with objections about high stakes competition- it hampers learning.
Throwing out public education is not the answer to your concerns. Training teachers appropriately,funding only public schools,encouraging professional autonomy,losing our fascination for standardized measures and high stakes testing, cutting back hours, and allowing kids time to be kids can all be accomplished in public schools , if we committed to the right goal.
Those who say education is coercive and bad for kids don;t know K-12 education - it's so much better for kids and parents than any alternative.

Jim, I appreciate your comment here, but if you read my book or other blog posts, or even read carefully this post, you will know that I am not proposing that kids stay home! In fact, much of my writing is on the subject that kids, and maybe especially those in our coercive schools, are far too isolated from one another--have far to little opportunity to really play, explore, and socialize together. My objection is to the nature of all schools--including those in Finland--that operate under the assumption that coercion, through use of rewards and punishment, promotes learning or that all children need to learn certain things, in the same way, at the same time. My research shows that children who are allowed to follow their own interests, in their own ways, become wonderfully educated, all differently, and retain their curiosity, self-initiative, and sense of real purpose in life. -Peter

I took some time to read your replies to others, as well as some of your other writings and I must say, I agree with most of it.
The last sentence of your reply to me pretty well sums up my feelings towards kids and learning.
"... children who are allowed to follow their own interests in their own ways, become wonderfully educated... retain curiosity, self initiative, and sense of purpose..."
I have been fighting for just that over my 35 years in the saddle, in classroom and administration.
However, I call the Kohn -ish idea upon which we agree
" public school" not "bag public school". It can be done, and it should be done.
Mandatory public school saves kids from all kinds of loony cults and un- professional, unhelpful influence(s).
While I agree that learned more between classes than in classes, getting up each day, walking to school with friends, are intrinsically valuable experiences.
The trick is to have them arrive at places which nurture their learning in the way we both believe is optimal - that de-emphasizes competition,allows them to explore and be excited about their learning and self actualization.
To me, the first goal of any school (or "place") as you term it, should be to help children have a happy childhood.
The "stuff" that we currently test the hell out of and the ranking we insist on at every turn, is both educationally and personally counterproductive.
The only problem I have with your plan is that you risk aligning yourself with school/ teacher haters - that's not good for kids.

In short, I trust a professional to supply a safe learning and affective practice area of the kind you describe more than I trust parents to supply or understand it and who might not see the value in having their kids attend some hippy learning place that doesn't have any rigour at all, where kids don't "do their work" and those in charge are all a bunch of union types.
I think we need to require learning, for the kids sake, but supply it in much the way you eloquently describe.
i also think the use of the word "coercive" misleads people like me who are on your side - how about "mandatory" instead.
Cheers, Jim - Vancouver